Critic of relinquished puppy tale wants to know: why is this a Whistleblower story?
Posted on July 16th, 2009 – 12:10 PMBy Lora Pabst
Reader opinions are boiling over in the comments section of my story about Pat Bergstrom’s puppy, which she “relinquished” to her vet when she couldn’t afford the cost of care. A reader named Kenneth sent this e-mail in response.
“I don’t get it, what are the ‘whistleblower’ or ‘investigation’ aspects of this story?” he wrote.
It’s a question I hear often. Most Whistleblower tips come from people who feel they have experienced an injustice and don’t know where to turn to get results. In deciding whether to pursue a story, I look for several key elements, including whether the individual’s problem might address a broader issue. I recognize that the stories that are pitched by the tipster will always have another side and we make every effort to get all the sides of the story.
Sometimes, the situation turns into a “he said, she said” where it is difficult to determine who is telling the truth. That is why we always ask Whistleblower tipsters for the paper trail that backs up what they are saying. Even then, it might not be clear who’s at fault. That doesn’t mean that the situation isn’t a story. Every situation that Whistleblower describes has gray areas. I try to give readers enough information to draw their own conclusions. Judging by the wild variety of reactions, you certainly do.
In Bergstrom’s case, I realized that even though she and the animal hospital owner, Dr. Adam Hurlbut, had different recollections of what happened in that clinic, their argument was one that other readers might find themselves in given the growing practice of pet owners “relinquishing” their animals to vets. Our decision to go with the story was bolstered when leaders of the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine and the Minnesota Veterinary Medical Association agreed that these relinquishments are happening more and more often.
Just so you know, what makes a Whistleblower story is also a matter of debate inside the newsroom. When the story was published in the newspaper, it didn’t feature the Whistleblower tag, but it did online.
I welcome your thoughts on what should and shouldn’t be a Whistleblower story.
35 Responses to “Critic of relinquished puppy tale wants to know: why is this a Whistleblower story?”
Leave a Reply
Your destination for righting wrongs, uncovering injustices big and small and holding people, companies and government accountable.
Become a whistleblower
The Star Tribune's journalists need your help blowing the whistle in Minnesota. Contact us at whistleblower@startribune.com.
More ways to get in touch
Are you on Facebook? Friend Whistleblower.
Do you use Twitter? Follow Whistleblower.
James Eli Shiffer started the Whistleblower blog and column in 2008. A reporter and editor for 20 years, Shiffer is fascinated with the stories of regular people and believes in the power of journalism to make their lives better.
Subscribe to Whistleblower
Learn more about RSS
Complain here!
Other bloggers and columnists who can help
The Star Tribune investigates
Categories
- Advertising claims (3)
- Aging infrastructure (4)
- Businesses in hot water (80)
- Buyer beware (68)
- Civil liberties (23)
- Complaint sagas (68)
- Corporate welfare (1)
- Corruption (5)
- Dangerous products (36)
- Disposable cities (6)
- Election Day (22)
- Free speech (4)
- Government spends your money (54)
- Home improvement (9)
- How to blow the whistle (29)
- Loopholes (1)
- Neighborhood nuisances (25)
- Polling problems (27)
- Problems on the job (4)
- Property problems (40)
- Public records (57)
- Recount (9)
- Scams (20)
- Seniors (18)
- The rich get richer (1)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Whistleblowers (10)
July 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
You are so full of BS. This never should have been a news story. Period.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
The article omits crucial facts that attempt to make it highly prejucial and inflammatory. (Fortunately, the commentors appear to have not bought in to this attempt to “right a wrong.”)
An article that omits crucial facts in order to address the writer’s idea of an injustice is certainly harmful to the parties involved and thus an inappropriate use of the power of the press. Shame on the Star Tribune!
July 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I’d like to see Whistleblower restricted to “whistleblowing” — i.e. calling for public attention when a government or other extremely large organization appears to be overstepping its authority or ignoring its responsibilities. It’s nearly impossible for a private citizen to call attention to incidents when it’s one against city hall or one against a state or federal agency. That’s where the Whistleblower can really make a positive difference that gets results–ahh! the clean smell of fresh air in the stuffy closets of bureaucracy. In contrast, the puppy case appears to be a case for civil court, and the claimant is quite free to make a case in that arena and doesn’t need outside intervention.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
It appears that this clinic helped out a pet owner who did not have money to properly care for an animal. Without proper resources for veterinary care, this owner shouldn’t be raising dogs in the first place. The whistleblower should have been an expose of why this owner didn’t spay her female not an attempt to vilify a kindhearted practitioner who saved the life of a puppy knowing that they wouldn’t get paid for any future care for that dog.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
the woman should not be allowed to have the dog back
under any circumstances. If she would rather put an
animal to death rather than pay to provide the medical
care it needs then she shouldn’t have any pets at all.
Why shouldn’t the pet go to a better home where the
owners will be responsible for it? Too many people
like this womean have children as well, and don’t take
care of them either. Unfortunately the kids never get
a chance for a better home…… Good luck to the dog!
July 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Perhaps you should consider doing a story about pet owners who make money by selling/breeding dogs, but then don’t want to be faced with paying the vet bills. Having a pet is a choice, and choosing not to fix is an additional choice. Or, better yet, do a story about the cost of vets bills in the Twin Cities, so anyone considering owning a pet, OR BREEDING THEM, can make an informed decision.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
But the question is: Should this be a whistleblower story or is it a general interest story. I don’t see what the Star Tribune is supposed to do about it. Whom should the ST staff contact to change the situation? I think this should play out in Civil COurt, not the paper.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Sorry writer, but a person should be able to be in the dog breeding business without being made the mean old money-grubber. Same with a vet who is a good (animal) samaritan. That it’s considered taking the moral highground nowadays to beat up anyone who makes money/profit (as reflected in the commentary) shows how Americans have been successfully intimidated and shamed for our successes. This, of course, doesn’t justify being irresponsible, either as a pet owner or as a vet. My vet has taken many an animal in, given the pet the (expensive) treatment to save its life and passed it on to another who will love it. Sometimes he gets paid back, other times he does not. But “someone” has made the decision the pet is or is not worth saving. They’re responsible for that decision. But the trend to make a cause celeb out of this story just proves it must be a slow news day and/or the Strib’s criteria of what makes up true whistleblowing needs redefining.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Since when does the Strib get involved in civil disputes? She fully understood her options: pay to have the puppy treated or relinquish the pet. She made the choice. Shame on the Strib for portraying the vet as the bad guy.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
This is an ugly day in the history of the Star Tribune. You should think long and hard about whether this is a human interest story–let a lone a whistle blower case–or just a hatchet job on a well-meaning veterinarian and local small business.